A Human Tiger

[Pierre]

Hi,

This article in the Shields Daily Gazette from Saturday 10 November 1888 is interesting, since it describes two opposite views on the killer the day after the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. One could say that on the one hand, the author of the article describes a disorganized killer, on the other hand, the author describes a well organized killer.

The first type of killer is viewed as a madman who can not control himself and the second type is a rational killer using strategies.

If one thinks that Jack the Ripper was the first type of killer, every explanation as to why he killed and mutilated Mary Jane Kelly must ignore rational planning and strategic choices. If one thinks that Jack the Ripper was the second type of killer, rational planning and strategic choices are used as explanations.

For the first type there are no motive explanations but only functional explanations: a compulsive urge to kill or even "madness".

For the second type there are motive explanations connected to the world around the killer, the time and society he lived in.

In the first case he is like a tiger acting on instinct with very little planning and no strategies.

In the second case he is a human tiger, acting from rational planning and strategic steps. As a human he also has motives.

Now, when we see the pictures of the remains of Mary Jane Kelly it looks as if a tiger has been in the room. And this may hide the right type of killer to us, since the killer did not just act like a tiger - but also managed to get into the room, perform the murder and mutilations and get away.

From the perspective of these two types of killers described in this article we could ask:

1. Was he a tiger, acting from instinct?
2. Was he a rational human?
3. What arguments are there for the first type?
4. What arguments are there for the second type?

And here is the article.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Robert St Devil]

Martha Tabram would be the example (maybe not Jack the Rippers) of a frenzied attack. But not Mary Kelly. Tigers don,t burn evidence when they,re done.

[Abby Normal]

Hi,

This article in the Shields Daily Gazette from Saturday 10 November 1888 is interesting, since it describes two opposite views on the killer the day after the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. One could say that on the one hand, the author of the article describes a disorganized killer, on the other hand, the author describes a well organized killer.

The first type of killer is viewed as a madman who can not control himself and the second type is a rational killer using strategies.

If one thinks that Jack the Ripper was the first type of killer, every explanation as to why he killed and mutilated Mary Jane Kelly must ignore rational planning and strategic choices. If one thinks that Jack the Ripper was the second type of killer, rational planning and strategic choices are used as explanations.

For the first type there are no motive explanations but only functional explanations: a compulsive urge to kill or even "madness".

For the second type there are motive explanations connected to the world around the killer, the time and society he lived in.

In the first case he is like a tiger acting on instinct with very little planning and no strategies.

In the second case he is a human tiger, acting from rational planning and strategic steps. As a human he also has motives.

Now, when we see the pictures of the remains of Mary Jane Kelly it looks as if a tiger has been in the room. And this may hide the right type of killer to us, since the killer did not just act like a tiger - but also managed to get into the room, perform the murder and mutilations and get away.

From the perspective of these two types of killers described in this article we could ask:

1. Was he a tiger, acting from instinct?
2. Was he a rational human?
3. What arguments are there for the first type?
4. What arguments are there for the second type?

And here is the article.

Kind regards, Pierre

maybe he was a were-tiger. plans like a human, and then when the woman sets him off he transforms into a tiger. then when the deed is done, he turns back into a human.

could throw the stride murder into question though.

[MysterySinger]

Urggh maybe he was a cannibal and cooked a bit of MJK's flesh to eat.

[Pierre]

Martha Tabram would be the example (maybe not Jack the Rippers) of a frenzied attack. But not Mary Kelly. Tigers don,t burn evidence when they,re done.

Hi Robert,

Is that what he did? What did he burn and what is the source for that?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

maybe he was a were-tiger. plans like a human, and then when the woman sets him off he transforms into a tiger. then when the deed is done, he turns back into a human.

could throw the stride murder into question though.

Hi,

Why could it throw the Stride murder into question?

Regards, Pierre

[Harry D]

Urggh maybe he was a cannibal and cooked a bit of MJK's flesh to eat.

Mary Kelly's flesh was burned as a religious sacrifice, I'm becoming more and more convinced of that. See Levicitus.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

from what we see, I would suggest he does not fit neatly into either class.

a mixture, organised in some respects, not so in others.


steve

[Pierre]

Pierre

from what we see, I would suggest he does not fit neatly into either class.

a mixture, organised in some respects, not so in others.

steve

Hi Steve,

yes, things are often measurable in continuous scales and not in 1/0 variables.

But using ideal types (theory of Weber) can be interesting for sorting out what characteristics the killer could have had and why - as well as what characteristics he could not have had and why.

And since you write that he was organized in some respects, in which respects do you think he was organized - and why?

And what was disorganized and why?

Regards, Pierre

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Pierre.

I generally don,t base any theories on the dead rising to burn articles on a fire. But rather than go down that road...

Tigers never read Gray,s Anatomy. Her killer identified her organs separately; he didn,t massacre them randomly. He didn,t senselessly hack at her once she was opened. If there was any frenzy, it may have been on her stomach since the fish and potatoes are found mixed in the abdomen. He attributes some significance to her breast. And, it doesn,t seem that he lacked any skill in how he removes the meat from her leg. He wasn,t trying to cleaver the meat off her leg by chopping it off. It seems to me that he was very adept with a knife when it comes to that purpose.

When I compare this murder with Polly Nicholls, murder, it has more method involved. More focus, like fisherman has suggested to me. Polly Nicholls infers that he is capable of pedestruan efforts, where he is more random with what he wants to do with her abdomen. [ That is why i am reconsidering MacKenzie and Cole could be part of his ,,gutter murders,,. ]

You,re correct. There is no source because Jack the Ripper was never caught and the article was burnt to ashes. I am just drafting off David Orsam,s suggestion that the killer was naked. It led to the thought: why not just use her apron... or her clothes as an apron? And, then burn them.

But overall, i don,t see Mary Kelly,s murder as some wild-dog attack. There is the appearance of deliberation on his part - what am i going to do with this organ, that organ, that piece of flesh, this breast...

[Pierre]

Hello Pierre.

I generally don,t base any theories on the dead rising to burn articles on a fire. But rather than go down that road...

Tigers never read Gray,s Anatomy. Her killer identified her organs separately; he didn,t massacre them randomly. He didn,t senselessly hack at her once she was opened. If there was any frenzy, it may have been on her stomach since the fish and potatoes are found mixed in the abdomen. He attributes some significance to her breast. And, it doesn,t seem that he lacked any skill in how he removes the meat from her leg. He wasn,t trying to cleaver the meat off her leg by chopping it off. It seems to me that he was very adept with a knife when it comes to that purpose.

When I compare this murder with Polly Nicholls, murder, it has more method involved. More focus, like fisherman has suggested to me. Polly Nicholls infers that he is capable of pedestruan efforts, where he is more random with what he wants to do with her abdomen. [ That is why i am reconsidering MacKenzie and Cole could be part of his ,,gutter murders,,. ]

You,re correct. There is no source because Jack the Ripper was never caught and the article was burnt to ashes. I am just drafting off David Orsam,s suggestion that the killer was naked. It led to the thought: why not just use her apron... or her clothes as an apron? And, then burn them.

But overall, i don,t see Mary Kelly,s murder as some wild-dog attack. There is the appearance of deliberation on his part - what am i going to do with this organ, that organ, that piece of flesh, this breast...

Hi Robert,

OK, so you think he was a rational killer using strategies. And therefore he had a motive.

What could have been the motive for rationally using a strategy to cut off nose, ears, flesh and disembowel a victim?

Here we have the motive explanation at work. The killer has a motive. It is an idiographic description of his reason for achieving the result. It is a specific reason or a reason composed of a set of reasons. The motive. His motive.

What is it?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

yes, things are often measurable in continuous scales and not in 1/0 variables.

But using ideal types (theory of Weber) can be interesting for sorting out what characteristics the killer could have had and why - as well as what characteristics he could not have had and why.

And since you write that he was organized in some respects, in which respects do you think he was organized - and why?

And what was disorganized and why?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

that is an interesting question and not one I find it easy to give straight answers on. I see bits of both on most points.


I do not believe he lead the victims to the sites, I see it the other way. That may be viewed as either organised or disorganised depending on which stance you take on who does the leading.

However they were happy to go with him, that suggests he was in control of himself and did not just attack at the first chance, he waited for the opportunity, when they was alone. so that sounds organised.

However that may not be the case with Stride, which may have been an impulsive attack, that depends on which if any of the witnesses you accept..

You mention MJK and yes there appears to have been some planning, either he went with her, or he knew where a woman was on her own. That suggests a degree of pre-planning.

However not withstanding the idea you have raised in the past of his taking a risk, he does leave himself with only one exit route ( I am not even considering that partition door) that does not sound like a rational course of action, he could easily have been seen leaving or even caught in the act, with no way of fleeing. that to me sound disorganised.

Now I know you have suggested that he chose Hanbury street, and we have discussed that at length. however for this purpose that does not matter.

At 29 Hanbury street yes it was fairly secluded and off the street, however depending on what we accept as a TOD he coud have been there as it got light, this increased the chance of discovery.
Be it light of dark, he could not know, that someone would not look out of a back window, or come into the yard.
Indeed it is possible that Cadosch heard him and Chapman.

The site also had very limited escape routes.
That to me is not risk taking, it is not calculated, it is someone who having found himself in a secluded spot cannot resist the need to strike, irrespective of the fact that he may be seen or even caught in the act.

That sounds very disorganised in this sense of the word.

Hope you see what I meant when said I see bits of both in most of the attacks.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;383042]

Pierre

that is an interesting question and not one I find it easy to give straight answers on. I see bits of both on most points.

I do not believe he lead the victims to the sites, I see it the other way. That may be viewed as either organised or disorganised depending on which stance you take on who does the leading.

OK. But is there any data for that? And if there isnīt we might as well postulate that they followed him. Why should they have done that? Is there any evidence to suggest they did? Isnīt Buckīs Row a strange place?

However they were happy to go with him, that suggests he was in control of himself and did not just attack at the first chance, he waited for the opportunity, when they was alone. so that sounds organised.

And if they were not happy, they went with him anyway. But in the case of Nichols?

However that may not be the case with Stride, which may have been an impulsive attack, that depends on which if any of the witnesses you accept.

It is not nice to cut peopleīs throats and kill them. How many killers of prostitutes were there in Whitechapel in September 1888?

You mention MJK and yes there appears to have been some planning, either he went with her, or he knew where a woman was on her own. That suggests a degree of pre-planning.

And on a special day.

However not withstanding the idea you have raised in the past of his taking a risk, he does leave himself with only one exit route ( I am not even considering that partition door) that does not sound like a rational course of action, he could easily have been seen leaving or even caught in the act, with no way of fleeing. that to me sound disorganised.

One must consider doorways marked out in house plans. The door between the shop and the backroom is visible there. If one does not "consider" them, one ignores the source. So if he was rational in other respects as you say, it would be more rational for him not to be left with just one exit route. So the clearest conclusion we can draw from an hypothesis of a rational killer, a human and not a tiger, is that he secures the way out - and in.

He is then organized all along. And wouldnīt he have wanted to be that on a special day?

Now I know you have suggested that he chose Hanbury street, and we have discussed that at length. however for this purpose that does not matter.

At 29 Hanbury street yes it was fairly secluded and off the street, however depending on what we accept as a TOD he coud have been there as it got light, this increased the chance of discovery.
Be it light of dark, he could not know, that someone would not look out of a back window, or come into the yard.
Indeed it is possible that Cadosch heard him and Chapman.

The site also had very limited escape routes.
That to me is not risk taking, it is not calculated, it is someone who having found himself in a secluded spot cannot resist the need to strike, irrespective of the fact that he may be seen or even caught in the act.

This is interesting. And what we must do here is to weigh the risk against the chance. Because that is what he must have done, considering he escaped. And that weighing therefore must have been calculating, rational and strategic.

That sounds very disorganised in this sense of the word.

As you see, you can look at this the other way too.

Hope you see what I meant when said I see bits of both in most of the attacks.

Steve

Yes, and thanks for very good answers. It is interesting to see that if you discuss them, there might be other perspectives. And what we need is the perspectives of the killer. Do we have that or are we just applying our own perspectives on the sources from 1888, that is the question.

Regards, Pierre

[Robert St Devil]

This little piggie went "oh murder!"...

I wouldn,t have the foggiest on his motive, Pierre. For all i know, he was doing ,,this little piggie,, and he got to the one that goes ,,whee,, all the way home.

That,s not to say he had a motive. The method he used to kill Mary Kelly may have just been a consequence of his profession. If he was accustomed to slaughtering pigs, maybe that,s what he would know to do - slit the throat, cut the snout and ears, slice open the abdomen, remove the organs, cut the haunches.

That,s just preliminary thinking. Good question tho..

[Robert St Devil]

Here,s a question for you Pierre. In your, uh, Mary Jane Kelly theory, isn,t ruining the Lord Mayor,s Day his motive? Isn,t THAT the motive behind Mary Jane Kelly,s murder... making her merely incidental, a perfect opportunity with just the right environment to pull off his dick dastardly plan?